Re: [media-types] Mime type for patch files?

[Mitar <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

Just an interesting thing, in 2008 people were complaining that PATCH
HTTP request "but the standards issue is still that there are no
registered diff formats."

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008JanMar/0316.html


Mitar

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 12:41 PM Mitar <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:46 PM Petter Reinholdtsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I guess it is time to pick up this thread gain. :)
>
> Yes, in fact I just got reply back. So it seems we do have to write an
> RFC. They wrote:
>
> ====
> To make this registration, the reviewers recommend writing an RFC. One
> adds, "Of course there may be other standards bodies I know nothing
> about that accept and publish documents; it would be fine if such a
> process was used."
>
> An independent-stream or an IETF-stream RFC would be acceptable. If
> the template were to appear in an independent-stream I-D intended for
> publication as an RFC, we would need to ask the IESG to approve the
> template separately before publication. That would have to be arranged
> with the Independent Stream Editor.
>
> You can find information on this process here:
> ====
>
> So, it seems somebody has to start working on a RFC here. Personally,
> I do not have time for something like this, and probably if to be done
> correctly, it should involve a broader community here, I suspect that
> many tools are using those patches and might have added extra custom
> stuff on top of it, so it might be useful to standardize that as well,
> or at least not to make them out-of-spec. So this looks like it has to
> be a bigger project than just registration.
>
> This is the application I submitted (slightly bugfixed here):
>
> ====
> Media type name: text
> Media subtype name: unified-diff
>
> Required parameters: N/A
>
> Optional parameters: N/A
>
> Encoding considerations: 8bit
>
> Security considerations:
> The security issues associated with this type have not been assessed.
>
> Interoperability considerations: N/A
>
> Published specification:
> https://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/manual/html_node/Detailed-Unified.html
> https://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=164293
>
> Applications which use this media:
> It is primarily used to describe the output of GNU patch program and
> compatible programs, including git.
>
> Fragment identifier considerations:
> N/A
>
> Restrictions on usage:
> N/A
>
> Provisional registration? (standards tree only):
> N/A
>
> Additional information:
>
> 1. Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A
> 2. Magic number(s): N/A
> 3. File extension(s): patch
> 4. Macintosh file type code: N/A
> 5. Object Identifiers: N/A
>
> General Comments:
>
> Person to contact for further information:
>
> 1. Name: Mi Tar
> 2. Email: [e-mail]
>
> Intended usage: Common
> For output of the GNU patch program.
>
> Author/Change controller: N/A
> ====
>
>
> Mitar
>
> --
> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> https://twitter.com/mitar_m



-- 
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m